WASHINGTON – The broadcast lobby is questioning
regulators’ authority to
revise OET-69, the methodology used to calculate the coverage area of a TV
station. Executives with National Association of Broadcasters went to the
Federal
Communications Commission Thursday to “express NAB’s
serious reservations” with
proposed changes to OET-69. The FCC’s Office of Engineering and
Technology
this week issued an updated version of OET-69 in a Public Notice, and asked for
feedback on it.

“By making substantive alterations to OET-69 at
this stage of the process, NAB explained that the commission was inviting
unnecessary delay into the process, and would cause widespread uncertainty for
broadcasters who may be deciding whether to participate in the auction and how
to go about protecting their viewers in the event they do not,” the
NAB said in
its ex parte filing describing the meeting.

The NAB contingent had three particular
nits with the revision—the FCC’s authority to change it
now; why it was carried
out as a notice rather than a rulemaking; and that it would create chaos.

The legislation directs the FCC to “make
all reasonable efforts to preserve, as of the date of the enactment of this
Act, the coverage area and population served of each broadcast television
licensee, as determined using the methodology described in OET Bulletin
69…”

“Congress plainly intended the commission
to apply OET-69 as it existed at the time of the legislation’s
enactment,” the
NAB stated.

However, sources on Capitol Hill say the
law’s intent was to make sure the same number of households receiving
TV
signals now continues to receive them after the tentative June 2014 spectrum
incentive auction. They say it was not intended to enjoin the FCC from revising
OET-69.

One long-time broadcast attorney countered
that changing OET-69 could fundamentally change TV station coverage areas. One
change in particular—the use of revised population
data—means that the same number of households
could be served in
a smaller geographic coverage
contour, allowing closer packing of stations. The same attorney questioned the
FCC’s claim that the current OET-69 uses 1990 Census data, which he
said was
updated in 2007. The revised OET-69 uses 2010 Census data said to comprise 24
percent more people than the 1990 version.

Just how the new version of OET-69 will
impact TV station coverage contours remains to be seen. The revision, released
on the FCC website in software dubbed “TVStudy,” is
Mac-based and may require
“minor modifications” for Windows users. It also requires
the downloading of
nearly 15 GB of database files.

The NAB also questioned why the OET-69
revision was carried out by the OET rather than as a full commission
rulemaking.

“The commission has, in the past, made comparable
changes at the commission and not staff level,” the NAB said.
“Furthermore, one
of the same changes proposed in the Public Notice—regarding
‘flagged’ cells—has
been addressed twice previously by the commission and rejected both
times.”

“Flagged” cells refer to geographic
units within the OET-69 methodology where reception is assumed but not
confirmed. The NAB said altering how flagged cells are interpreted could
“affect the coverage area and population served for some stations by
25 to 30
percent,” and thus may violate the “express language of the
Spectrum Act.”

Finally, the NAB contingent said
changing OET-69 now “creates substantial uncertainty for broadcasters
and the
wireless industry.” It agreed that an OET-69 revision was in order,
just not
now, and not through a Public Notice, but rather a full rulemaking.

“This proceeding is not an appropriate
forum because, beyond speeding up the processing of the nationwide
repack—which
can be done through other means—
the package of changes contemplated are
highly unlikely to yield any appreciable benefit for stakeholders in the
auction,” NAB said. “Rather, as the commission has
previously found in
addressing this area, they will result in uncertainty and
disruption.”

The
NAB’s skepticism runs counter to the initial impressions of
radio-frequency
expert and TV Technology contributor
Doug Lung, who said in today’s “RF
Report” that he was “impressed with the
improvements.”

“I've written several articles on the inaccuracies in the
current OET-69 software,” Lung said. “Once I'm able to
obtain a copy of the
software, examine the code, and run some studies to compare with field test
results, I'll be able to provide a better analysis of the proposed
changes.”

The FCC’s OET-69 revision docket is No. 13-26. Comments are due on
the software
update by March 21, 2013. Replies are due Aril 5, 2013.

~ Deborah D. McAdamsAlso see…Feb.
8, 2013, “FCC
OET-69 Update Appears Promising”
In reviewing the Public Notice on the updated OET-69, I'm
impressed with the improvements. I've written several articles on the
inaccuracies in the current OET-69 software and presented a summary of them in
my RF Delusions presentation at the 2006 NAB Show.
Feb. 6, 2013, “NAB:
OET-69 Update Injects ‘Legal
Uncertainty’“We are extremely concerned about the Public
Notice.”
Feb. 5, 2013, “FCC
Reveals Crucial Piece of TV Repacking
Model”The FCC has quietly revealed what amounts to its methodology
for repacking TV channels in the post-incentive auction spectrum band. The
agency released a new version OET-69 software that it intends to use for the
repacking, and is seeking input on its efficacy.

Print

Email

Share

Comments

Post New CommentIf you are already a member, or would like to receive email alerts as new comments are
made, please login or register.

Enter the code shown above:

(Note: If you cannot read the numbers in the above
image, reload the page to generate a new one.)